UK may vote to leave the European Union

?
What thin ice? My only point was that it was not the entire Parliament that voted and therefore it was not yet law.
I included the UK Parliament link above that details exactly how a bill becomes a law. All we need is the little Bill dude singing in a British accent.
Both Houses must vote for a bill to become law.
Ice is pretty thick on that point.

 

No, not very thick. What that website says is true, but it's incomplete. If you click around on that page, you'll find references to the Parlament Acts of 1911 and 1949. They greatly limit the ability of the House of Lords to kill legislation passed by the House of Commons. That has made them more deferential, and of course, it is expected that the HoL will pass the anti-no deal Brexit bill today. So this is likely to become a moot point.

Keep in mind who's in the House of Lords. It is extremely establishmentarian. It's not Nigel Farages. It's a bunch of dudes from Downton Abbey.

 

it is expected that the HoL will pass the anti-no deal Brexit bill today
and then it will be as you say moot
but it was not moot on Wed. It was not correct.

 

Feel free to disbelieve.

 

MrD
Had it passed Parliament on Wed?

 

No, and SH corrected that technicality. What you're getting wrong is that you're treating the fact that it hadn't passed the HoL as analogous to a bill passing the House of Representatives but not yet passing the Senate. It's a false analogy. That was his point, and he is correct.

 

Wow. Both parties can be correct, and yet hold a multi day and multi post cat fight about it.

 

Lol. 6721 is right on the substantive issue. He's just wrong on a minor technicality.

And the point is now officially moot. Link.

 

Mr D
Now that it is moot explain what this means to Brexit.Please

 

So what are the British people going to do? If they do nothing, they are slaves.

 

I think the link gives a pretty good explanation. It requires Johnson to ask the EU for an extension unless the House of Commons approves an agreement or changes its mind and decides on a no-deal Brexit. If no extension or agreement is reached, Johnson must send a letter to the President of the European Council asking for an extension until January 31, 2020. Furthermore, there won't be a snap election.

The only way I could see a no-deal Brexit on schedule is if the EU refuses an extension. However, if you are the EU, why not grant the extension? Let the UK flounder and tear itself apart until they're so exhausted that they either take a really awful deal that nobody will like or until they give up and return to the EU with their tail between their legs.

Parliament is basically deciding it doesn't give a **** about the referendum and will do whatever it takes to crap on it and nullify it. It's even willing to eviscerate its own country's power and leverage to do it. It's courageous like it would have been courageous for a Nazi sympathizer to give American nuclear technology to Germany in 1944 because he wanted us out of the war.

It just shows that when the sanctimonious globalist Left hails itself as the leaders of the free world and protectors of democracy and rule of law, they're full of crap. They like democracy until the people choose a path they don't want. Then they're willing to use whatever trick or act of treachery they can to trump the people.

 

They don't have to be slaves though. They could choose freedom, self-determination, and the right to chart their own path. They tried to do that, but their elected leaders are doing everything they can to undermine them.

 

A friend of mine from Bristol posted this on Facebook.

 

I presume this is pro brexit?

 

Yes

 

That same sentiment applies to the leftists hating on so many here in America.

 

Deez

That is my question though. Once the elected leaders undermine them what are they going to do? Be slaves? If they let politicians keep them in the EU they are basically slaves. They show they have no recourse.

 

Well, I hope the recourse is the ballot box, but considering what they're doing after the referendum I can see why people would be cynical.

 

Yep, like we suckers who ever believe any of our politicians who say they will address the deficit.

 

Huh? They already voted to LEAVE. Then they elected May. Then they elected Boris. NO ONE WILL LEAVE. The politicians have refused to carry out the people's will.

Sometimes I think democracy is a lie. Now is one of those times. Slaves get to vote for which type of slavery they prefer basically.

 

That's why I said I hope. Clearly that hasn't been the case. Probably the best test for how strong a democracy is is how easy it is for the public to do something the government doesn't want it to do. How readily do those in power honor their wishes? How easy is it for the loser to go to court and invalidate the people's wishes? Right now, we're seeing that the UK's democracy isn't very strong. The people can get their way unless the government doesn't want them to.

Frankly, I'm receptive to the argument that Parliament should be deciding this rather than the people directly. Direct democracy is stupid. We elect representatives for a reason. However, once they decided to give the issue to the people and promised to honor their decision, that changed the dynamic. If you want the legitimacy that comes with democracy, then you have to accept democracy's will. You can't circumvent it, and you sure as hell can't try to sabotage it to the detriment of your country like they're trying to do.

 

It's different. We can address the deficit. We just reject politicians who want to do so and instead support politicians who want to spend a lot of money (on entitlements, education, healthcare, and the military). We basically want Norway's welfare system, China's military, and the Cayman Islands' tax system. Well, that stupidity is on us. We don't have anybody to blame.

 

This has become the standard resolution for the WAPO -- jail any politician who disagrees with them

 

I can't tell if you guys were being disingenuous on the Parliament issue or if you seriously believe you backed SH into a corner on a technicality and thereby won the day.

That said, the anti-Brexit politicians with the attitude of "We lost the Brexit vote, so rather than accepting it and trying to make it work as best we can, or use it as leverage to get something else we want, we will sabotage Brexit so completely so as to make sure it goes badly for our nation, because we believe the Brexit side will get blamed for it" clearly have the support of a very large number of people.

 

The Brexit vote was close. About 48 percent wanted to remain, so I'm sure there are plenty who want to fight Brexit. However, it takes a special kind of opposition to say, "to hell with my country. I want to get my way." I do wonder how many Remainers are actually that militant. No doubt that some are, but I can't imagine there not being a significant minority of Remainers who are still patriotic Brits and who aren't big fans. Let's put it this way. If there aren't, then the UK has bigger and deeper problems than Brexit.

 

I believe the margin Brexit vote margin was in the neighborhood of 3.78% which is a strong Pro-Brexit vote but hardly a mandate. A no-deal Brexit is very unpopular based on recent polling which is likely why the recent legislation won going away. Boris and the Brexit hardliners have been unable to duplicate the Trump Republican Party power-grab of the Conservative party and now sit adrift at sea with no majority and a declining power base.

Evidence shows that the Pro-Brexit campaigners lied, repeatedly. Given that fact and the reality that UK citizens now get to see what a Brexit looks like it would seem that another referendum should be in order.

 

My point Deez is that every politician we elect makes some claim that they will do this or that to address the deficit during their term but never do anything once in - except spend.

 

I get your point, but they do that, because we don't want them to do anything but spend. Think about it. We spend about $4.1T per year.

$988B - Social Security
$631B - National defense
$589B - Medicare
$551B - Medicaid and other federal health programs
$179B - Veterans services
$325B - Interest on the national debt
about $740B - other junk

We're borrowing about $780B per year to finance these programs.

There's only one of these items that we truly can't do anything about - interest on the national debt. That money has to be spent, but that's only about 8 percent of the budget. There's still 92 percent that we can work with - should be easy, right? Wrong.

Social Security - We can't cut that, because the elderly who vote in massive numbers will freak out. Furthermore, the Democrats will exploit that to its fullest and will get the full support of the media in doing so. Can't cut it.

Medicare - (See Social Security.)

Medicaid - We can't cut that either. A big part of that goes to the elderly, so it would present the same challenges as cutting Social Security. We could cut the reimbursement rates to doctors, but the rates already suck, so if we cut those, then doctors will stop taking Medicaid.

What if we just cut the part that gives health insurance to the working poor? After, all who gives a crap about a bunch of Mexicans and shitkickers working at Walmart and McDonald's? Walmart and McDonalds, that's who. If we don't give them Medicaid, they will look to Walmart and McDonalds for benefits. They might even try to unionize to get it. In other words, we can't cut that either, because Walmart and McDonalds would have to start paying a somewhat living wage and dealing with unions. (Frankly, it might get interesting if we applied a tax surcharge to any business whose employees become Medicaid eligible, but that's not gonna happen.)

National defense - We can cut that a little here and there, but nobody wants a weak military. Furthermore, there are huge political players involved in that budget who will crap their pants if we cut it substantially. Besides, the whole thing is only about 15 percent of the budget, so how far could we really cut it and make a big difference? Hell, we could close the entire Pentagon, and it wouldn't balance the budget.

Veterans services - Who wants to screw over people who have served their country in a time of war, some of whom were wounded in the process? Not many takers for that, and again, it's not a huge item.

I know. Let's cut the other junk. Well, some of that junk is pretty important. It's for things like transportation. Do you like roads, bridges, airports, and train stations that don't fall apart? Yeah, I do too, and that stuff is expensive. Do you like having things like a federal court system? Yep, same here. How about money for public schools? I don't give a crap, but there are tens of millions of dumb soccer moms and teachers who do, and they outnumber people like me. How about cutting federal welfare programs (housing assistance, food stamps, etc.)? We can cut some of that, but in context, it's just not that big. And again, see the Medicaid discussion.

Could we raise taxes? Of course, but that can backfire if the economy slumps. Furthermore, who's willing to take a tax increase? Rich people can pay more, but it's not going to yield another $780B per year - or even make much of a dent. To get that kind of money, we'd have to hammer tens of millions of non-rich people who aren't used to paying high taxes and tell them they won't get anything for it. It's not gonna happen.

So the bottom line is that we take far too many and too big of items off the table for negotiation and then won't pay the taxes needed to bankroll it all, and that's why we can't balance the budget. It's easy to blame the politicians. They hold the power of the purse, but is it really their fault? We've had politicians who tried to talk sense to us. George W. Bush tried to do it after he got reelected. Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey tried to do it in the mid-'90s. Ross Perot did it. Ron Paul and now Rand Paul have done it for decades. Guys like Paul Ryan, Jack Kemp, John Kasich, Phil Gramm, and even some Democrats like John Breaux, Dick Lamm, Tim Penny, and Ernest Hollings tried to get us to put the brakes on some of this crap. We told them all to f**k off, or we dismissed them as weirdos (and admittedly some of them were).

Again, it's on us.

 

Nobody liked the "deal" the EU was willing to make either. In fact, it was less popular than a no-deal Brexit. So the options are either no-deal (at least in the short term) or a bad deal in the long term. And this is why Boris, May, Corbyn, or whoever the PM happens to be is going to be in a tough bind no matter what. There is no easy solution. It also doesn't help that the UK has to show its cards, because it's a democracy with its battles being waged in public, while the EU (at least on day-to-day matters like this) is not and can have its discussions internally. It can basically act like it doesn't care.

That's a very simplistic characterization. It was a political referendum. Everybody embellished, spun, or lied if we want to use that term. The big thing the Brexit supporters pushed that their opponents were quick to characterize as a "lie" was the 350 million pounds per week claim. Was it a lie? Kinda depends. If you just look at the UK's contribution to the EU, it's pretty much accurate. If you factor in the rebate the UK gets, it's more like 250 million per week. That kind of thing is extremely common in politics. A key fact was omitted to make something sound bigger than it is. The Right does it. The Left sure as hell does it. In fact, they do it every time they talk about a budget matter. They never just use straight numbers for obvious reasons.

The Remain side predicted economic collapse, violence, war, and basically every terrible thing we can imagine if the UK even tried to leave. Obviously, none of that is happening or even on the horizon. Were those "lies?" Arguably yes, arguably no. Were they gross hyperbole intended to arouse fear and deceive? No question. Where's the collapse? Where are all the "Brexit refugees" who would fleeing the coming apocalypse? Where are the militaries mobilizing all over the UK and the continent preparing for war? It's not happening, because that was nonsense. The reality is that if the UK leaves, it'll be a disruption. It's not going to be the end of the world. It'll be like Y2K.

People get caught up in the rhetoric, and we don't know exactly what's motivating them with any given decision. That's why referendums are stupid, and holding the referendum was a very arrogant move by a Remainer-PM. I'm not sure what good a second referendum would do. What if Leave wins again? Will the Remainers accept defeat and stop trying to sabotage the process? Of course they won't. What would be far more helpful is a snap election. Give the public a chance to get rid of the people who would do that. If they toss them, then Brexit proceeds. If they keep them, then Johnson is probably out, and we're back to the pathetic dance that the UK is doing. Of course, the Remainers now don't want a snap election after spending a year whining for one. That should tell you something about where they actually think the public is.

 

I see your points Deez. Is there any credence to the argument that the brexit campaign was tampered with and the promises made are ludicrous. Therefore, the legislators are not taking an action that will harm the UK?